' This petition for quashment of the impugned orders dated 5-11-1999 of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Quetta and learned Additional Sessions Judge-V. Quetta has been filed by the petitioner (Mukhtiar Hussain), whereby he has questioned the Order of allowing the car on 'Superdari' to respondent No,1 by the learned Judicial Magistrate and dismissal of his Criminal Revision Petition by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta.
2. The brief facts are that Respondent No, 1 lodged an F.I.R. No,142 of 1999 at Police Station Brewery, Quetta under sections 420/506/504/396, P.P.C. Alleging therein that her Corolla Car Registration No,QAE-4456 was taken by one Farhan-urRehman for the purpose of sale but the cheque amounting to Rs,I00,000 (Rupees one lac) given to her could not be encashed. She accordingly made request for return of car or the cost of the same. She requested for legal action against Farman-ur-Rehman and one Raza Irani.
3. It is stated that the petitioner purchased vehicle bearing No,QAE-4456 from one Nasrullah Khan in consideration of Rs,2,90,000 (Rupees two lacs ninety thousand). It is stated that the delivery of the vehicle along with documents and transfer letter was made to the petitioner. It is stated that the vehicle in question was taken into possession by the Police on 24-6-1999 in Crime No,142 of 1999. The respondent No,1 applied for the custody of the car to Judicial Magistrate-III, Quetta who accepted the application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Vide Order dated 5-11-1999. The petitioner also moved an application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. For custody of the said motor-car on 'Superdari'. The learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Quetta heard the matter and on 12-11-1999 disposed of the application with the following orders:-- "Notice of the application was given to the State. I have heard the arguments from both sides at length. I have also perused the record of the case very carefully. Pertains to mention here that previously i,e, on 4-11-1999 complainant of the instant case Waheeda Habib filed an application under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. For the custody of vehicle in question on Superdagi. Notice of the application was given to State after hearing both the parties said application was accepted on 5- 11-1999 and applicant was directed to furnish Superdari name of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) P.R.
Like amount for the satisfaction of the Court. Thus, the Superdagi application already has been disposed of. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to review his order, hence application 'filed by Mukhtiar Hussain hereby dismissed."
4. Both the orders dated 5-11-1999 and 12-11-1999 were challenged by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Quetta in Criminal Revision Petition No,9 of 2000. The Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta, who heard this revision application and dismissed the same on 29-2-2000 by making the following orders:-- "Perusal of record shows that the vehicle in question was taken into custody by the police authorities from the possession of petitioner vide F.I.R. No,142 of 1999. The petitioner alleged that he has purchased the vehicle in question in consideration of Rs,2,90,000 vide above F.I.R. The respondent No,1 alleged that she gave the car to Farman-ur-Rehman for sale but the said person did not pay her the sale price, learned counsel for the respondent No,1 contended that the petitioner and Farman-ur-Rehman get the vehicle from the respondent No,1 by convenience of each other and the vehicle in question has been obtained by the petitioner through fraud and misrepresentation. The respondent No,1 lady and widow is entitled for the possession of car. He supported the orders passed by the learned lower Court. While the counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in question and he is entitled for its release on Superdari. Perusal of record further shows that Farman-ur-Rehman did not pay any consideration amount of the respondent No,1 and in the circumstances, this is safe to presume that the possession of vehicle in question was obtained fraudulently and in circumstances the possession of petitioner is not lawful. Law provides that the Courts are empowered to deliver the possession of property to its owner, but in the present situation, the ownership was obtained through connivance of Farman-ur-Rehman, which is not proper. The respondent No,1 was entitled for the release of vehicle on Superdari being its owner. In the result, the revision petition is accordingly dismissed, as the learned lower Court has appreciated the matter rightly passed the impugned orders."
5. Being dissatisfied with the above-mentioned orders the petitioner challenged the same before this Court.
6. I have heard Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed learned counsel for the respondent No,1 and Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mengal learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State.
7. Learned Assistant Advocate-General representing the State has supported the impugned Orders.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in question, which was purchased by him through a valid sale transaction from Messrs Aryan Motors on 14-3-1999. It is maintained that the said vehicle was purchased by Nasrullah from Muhammad Saleh who happens to be driver of Mst.Waheeda Habib, widow of Dr. Habib on 8-12-1999. It is stated that the car was purchased after confirming the documents and other necessary identities. It is stated that if the petitioner was not entitled for the 'Superdari' of the vehicle in dispute then as per law the respondent No,1 would also not be entitled for the 'Superdari' of the same which has been ordered by the Courts below. It is submitted that the original documents of the vehicle are in possession of petitioner who is bona fide purchaser of the vehicle.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in the circumstances of the case only civil liability arises and that too is against Fiiman-ur-Rehman and not against the present petitioner, therefore, the orders passed by the Court below are not maintainable and are liable to be quashed.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No,1 has submitted that the respondent being owner of the car was entitled for the custody of the car while the petitioner should have been prosecuted along with the persons who committed fraud, from whom he claimed to have purchased this car. As stated earlier learned Assistant Advocate-General has supported the impugned Orders.
10. Sections 516-A to 525, Cr.P.C. Deal with powers of the Court in the matter of disposal of property.
Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. Enables a Magistrate to provide the interim custody of property pending the conclusion of the trial. The Courts below have dealt with the matter regarding 'Superdari' of car during pendency of proceedings to the respondent No,1 and this Court in the circumstances of the case cannot substitute the conclusions which were concurrently and reasonably drawn by the learned Courts below. No illegality has been pointed out and no justification has been made out for interference. Even otherwise open transfer letter is not a valid document of title. I am also supported in this behalf by the case of Ghulam Shabbir Lashari v. The State, reported in 1991 PCr.LJ 287, wherein it was observed that T.O. Form is not by itself document of title. In these circumstances, there is no good ground for interference in the impugned Orders and the petitioner for quashment is liable to dismissal at this stage and the same is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is, however, directed to conclude the trial as early as possible. The petitioner shall, however, be at liberty to move for 'Superdari' of the car under section 516-A, Cr.P.C. As and when some evidence comes on record or under section 517, Cr.P.C. At conclusion of the trial as the case may be, if deemed fit.